Skip to comments.Quinnipiac 2016 National GOP Poll
Posted on 01/21/2014 6:57:37 PM PST by PaulCruz2016
January 15-19, 2014
Rand Paul: 13%
Paul Ryan: 13%
Chris Christie: 12%
Jeb Bush: 11%
Ted Cruz: 9%
Marco Rubio: 8%
Scott Walker: 6%
Bobby Jindal: 3%
John Kasich: 2%
Um, November 2014 is a lot closer than November 2016. Why not poll something relevant to the near term?
Pick your poison, they got a ton of ‘em:
Tiny sample, irrelevant poll at this point.
Very tight with no clear frontrunner.
Cruz is in the middle, I think that’s a good position at this point in time. Too far to fall if you are number one this early.
With those demographics why do they even bother to call it a GOP poll.
Right. The demographics go a long way to expose their idiot poll.
we have so many great combinations,how can u just narrow it down to one?Most of us (I am assuming) want to see Allen West as VP.Yet at the same time,most of us would love to see Cruz/Paul/Walker on the ticket. But which two will beat the Hillary/Cuomo Ticket (lol). worse case scenario,,,a “Wasserman/Dean” ticket.
Cruz n West ticket will beat any Dem. Cruz will bring conservatives out...and West will help win a toss up state like FL
No one should discount West’s statewide appeal...he got redistricted into a Dem area of South FL. West will absolutely pulverized Dems in military influenced North FL areas like Jaxville n Pensacola
I honestly believe Cruz would carry Florida without help. He’d need a running mate who could help put the upper mid-west back in play.
I always wonder just WHERE these stupid poll respondents are located. The results of their polls very rarely coincide with the thinking of likely voters in the South, Southwest or flyover country.
The Q poll results are as ridiculous as those by the WSJ, WaPo and various network and cable TV channels that invite people to respond to loaded questions. The results do not represent how citizens feel about various topics.
A poll of leftists hoping to persuade republicans... compare this with the real polls later this year.
RINO liberals in 3 of top 4...not good.
That’s actually a pretty big sample.
But you’re right on the irrelevance—it’s mostly a reflection of name recognition right now.
I wouldn’t call Paul a RINO liberal.
But that’s the state of the GOP. I only see two Constitutionalists there: Cruz and Paul.
Sadly, Paul is endorsing “Mitch the Bitch” - the ultimate RINO and Sen minority leader.
I have faith in Cruz...and Palin.
Yep, Paul is too ambitious for his funky liber-publican ideology.
Cruz and Palin are about the only two I trust too. Sadly, Sarah seems more interested in reality TV shows than the kind of serious wonk work that would have built her credibility as a candidate.
most national polls have 1100-1600 sample .
But loads of reported political polls are in the 300 to 500 range. The marginal gain in confidence from 800 to 1100 is quite small.
Also, most national polls include voters from both parties, so only a third or so are Republicans.
With due respect, very few are in the 300-500 range - the smallest in the 500-600 range and all of those are lampooned for how small they are. Most of the big time polls are 1000+.
For example, Gallup and Rasmussen’s daily tracking polls have 1000 as sample .Rasmussen will use 500 for a state poll from time to time, but never national. Major polls, not daily tracking, will be in the 1500-1600 range.
Again, all of those polls include Democrats and independents as well. It is rare to get a poll with 800 Republicans.
2nd: Any person or poll that tries to assert absolutely anything about who the candidates will be, in 2016 -- BEFORE THE 2014 ELECTIONS, MIND YOU -- is a fool.
3rd: See #1.
That’s irrelevant .math is math and sample size is sample size - and full disclosure, I’m a polling consultant. You’re in my wheelhouse here.
Then you’re not a very good one—sorry. (And I hope you work for the GOPe.)
Whenever a Gallup or some other such poll provides data based on a subset of its total sample (e.g., presidential primary preference among Republicans) its results are only are strong as the sample size of that subset: all of the Democrats and independents that were included in the larger poll are irrelevant.
Thus, this is one of the larger GOP-only sample sizes you’ll see.
Polls are fixed. They are no longer real. They are a waste of time.
you’re outta your league. Bye.
(and I’m a damned good one )
You can’t defend or explain being dead wrong—so you hurl insults instead.
Fortunately for your business, you’re anonymous here.
Bwahaha—I see now you’re not actually anonymous!
I did defend and explain, and you missed it. You are conflating two different issues when there is a subset and when that subset IS the entire sample .I get it, you don’t.
BTW, latest Rasmussen congressional poll? 3500 sample. Let me repeat, 3500 sample.
A national poll of 833 total sample is teeny weeny, period.
And you’re the only anonymous one in this conversation .
Then maybe you can enlighten me as to the difference between a poll that quotes the results of a subset of x number of participants versus a poll that contacts and prequalifies the same total number of participants, but only surveys that X number that fit the general poll’s subset.
Your profession regularly quotes the responses of the 12% of African-Americans in a poll, for example, and then presents that data as if it has the same validity as the poll overall.
But I do not endorse about 75% of the “profession” - which doesn’t change my original statement that 833 is a tiny sample for a national poll .and that a “subset” is only a subset when it’s a subset ..and when the subset is the entire set, it’s not a subset anymore.
Two concepts you can’t wrap around .
But data based on a subset has no more statistical validity than the size of the subset. Those larger national polls you are referencing are typically only interviewing Republicans a third of the time. Thus, the Republican-specific results of those polls are only as statistically valid as that smaller subset of Republicans would suggest.
Again, in that context, this is actually a relatively large sample of GOP-only voters.
Just what I was thinking. These writers have too much free time on their hands. With nothing better to do they conduct these meaningless polls that very few folks are interested in this far out from the general elections in 2016. They ought to try digging into the many scandals plaguing this corrupt Obummer administration.
no, you still don’t get it .not at all ..and I’ve not the patience to splain it to you.
Right, because you still can’t justify your position.
No, you can’t understand it. I can’t be held responsible for your lack of understanding.
Okay, I’m too much of a teacher to leave you stranded in stupid land. A subset can act as a subset ONLY in comparison to OTHER subsets because THATS the reason they are a subset to begin with in a given poll.
However, just because 800 Republicans is a valid subset in a poll of say 2200 total adults - because they are being contrasted to those other 1400 adultsand NOT to each other - does NOT mean that 800 is valid as the entire set of a given national poll, where those 800 are being contrasted with just the other 799.
These are two entirely different metrics do you follow?
No, I think your logic is off.
If you’re surveying Republicans about their preferences among GOP presidential primary candidates, there is no greater validity to the answers to those questions if they are part of some larger poll that queries other, non-GOP respondents on other questions as well, than there is with a poll that surveys only an equal number of Republicans on their GOP primary preferences—and doesn’t go through the process of also asking non-Republicans other questions.
Three RINOs and a borderline wackjob leading the list. We’re in trouble.
I have plenty of weaknesses but dude, logic is not not not not not one of them and not even close.
Yet you can’t concede my point.